No problem. I just wanted to do my part to make sure things go smoothly. If you have any questions about any processes or anything, feel free to ask. I like to help. Hazardous Matt19:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look - You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them.
Editing from 80.58.205.43 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Nakon for the following reason(s):
This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If your ISP has misconfigured its proxy, you can try bypassing it by logging into Wikimedia's secure gateway at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/. For more information about open proxies and what you can do, please see the WikiProject on open proxies.
(Multi-RBL lookup • Sandbox test edit)
This block has been set to expire: 04:27, 6 July 2010.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email.
Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.
Other useful links: Blocking policy · Username policy · Appealing blocks: policy and guide
[show]What does this mean?
As on many websites, Wikipedia administrators occasionally block accounts and IP ranges that are deemed responsible for or related to problematic activity. You may be an innocent victim of collateral damage, whereby a block of some other activity has accidentally caused your account to be inaccessible. Alternatively, your account or IP may have been identified by an administrator as responsible for or related to misuse, or some other breach of policy.
If your account has been blocked by mistake, it will be reactivated very quickly, as soon as you let an administrator know of the problem. Otherwise, there is a rapid appeal process which obtains quick review by other independent administrators, and brief discussion of the matter. The box above gives the information you will need in either case, as provided by the blocking administrator.
What is a block?
A block is a measure used to protect Wikipedia from possible improper use, or modification in breach of editorial policies. Once blocks are over, they become history unless problems recur. Blocks can apply to a user account, an IP, or a range of IPs. A number of automated features identify unblocked usage which apparently should be blocked; this can be quickly rectified if incorrect.
Most common causes
Your IP matches that used by another blocked account. Ask for further information and/or request unblocking.
Your account or a connected IP has been used in a problematic way, or your username was unsuitable and you need to choose another. The reason should be in the box above.
You have just clicked a 'red link' - an article that does not yet exist - but you do not have access to start a new page when no article exists already. Ask someone else to create the page for you, or create an account yourself to do so.
You are using Google Web Accelerator or some other web accelerator, or an open proxy, or other similar software to access this site, which can interfere with some aspects of Wikipedia's vandalism-management process. Some schools, colleges, workplaces and ISPs can also cause this problem. Disable these and try again, or see below.
Try logging in with the link they gave you for the secure wp login. If that doesn't work, contact your ISP and see if they use or have you on an open proxy. Also, make sure you're not using any proxy add-ons in Firefox if you use that browser. If none of those work, see if you can still post to wp:ani and see if anything can be resolved there. I'm not sure if that's the proper place to go for this. Hazardous Matt20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never called you a noob. ;) I never call anyone a noob. And I can't unblock you. I'm not an administrator. Also, it's not you that's blocked, it's the proxy. Hazardous Matt20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
look at This See how this user has been blocked a-lot? Your version of this show's no blocks. Is this your only other account Kalajan? Be honest as I'm being generous here. SteelersFan-94 20:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Kalajan, and when it said i was blocked i ran to my granma´s house too make a new account because i thought that other users can unblock you Kalajan (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, making another account isn't that great in this situation. You still won't be able to use it at home because of whatever proxy issue is in effect. Second, it raises the question of sock-puppetry. What was the name of the second account you created? Hazardous Matt20:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Type "helpme" on your talk page with two of these: {{ }} right next to it, and state your problem after that, an administrator will help you possibly perform a check user like I stated before and determine what should happen. And Matt, let's get to that later, I would have done the same thing if I was new. SteelersFan-9420:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to imply anything, merely trying to explain that doing such is not viewed kindly by all. I agree though, {{helpme}} is a good start. Hazardous Matt20:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was busy. Anyway, we'll get this straighten'd out. However, I think your other account will be blocked. But since this account will be inblocked, it shouldn't be a big deal. Have you considered the WP:ADOPTION program? Take a look at it, you might be interested with it. Let me know if you are. SteelersFan-9422:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ill adopt you. I've been looking for somebody to adopt. the adoption program is pretty much for newer user's who can get a established mentor to help them out, or show them the ropes. And as for the administrator thing, I know user's who have been on here for years, have 65,000+ edit's and aren't admins. It's a long hard process. But the adoption program is the first step to becoming an administrator. And for the record, I'm not one. SteelersFan-9417:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be adopted? No, I put the userbox on mine and your userpages, Do you have any questions? Also, my time is sometimes limited on here so what time zone do you live in? I need to know so I can determine when to get on here to help you. Also, if you have anything to ask maybe concerning a private matter here on wikipedia or something, you can Email me at: zac1194@gmail.com. please just let me know when you email me on my talkpage so I can check my inbox. SteelersFan-9421:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Master Look, it says I'm blocked again - You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them.
Editing from 80.58.205.38 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Infrogmation for the following reason(s):
Vandalism
This block has been set to expire: 12:56, 9 April 2009.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email.
To upload an image here, go to on the side of the page were it say's "upload file", and just folow the setup. NOTE:If it's not a photo you took, or have permission from the photo's owner. It will probably deleted. SteelersFan-9423:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but that's not the point. You're going to see the term "cruft" a lot. It refers to something that may seem notable but is horribly trivial and doesn't contribute to the article.
Example, see at the top of your browser how it says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"? That means an article about video games should include information about the synopsis, the production, design, development, reception, and if necessary a small bit about the plot. An article is not automatically a catch-all for any and all information about the game. Brush up on what makes an article good. Read WP:good_article and see if that helps. Hazardous Matt22:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you don't need to creat a new section ever time you leave someone a message, keep it threaded. Otherwise it gets confusing. And the cheatsheet is there. It's in the link in the post above this one. I just clicked on it and it worked. Hazardous Matt22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do both. I don't know as much with userpage's but I can still do it for you. And I can do most signature's. What color's do you want. And I'll give get to work on it. SteelersFan-9422:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Mickie James and The Great Khali will become a storyline. Even it will, it hasn't happened yet, so per WP:CRYSTAL, it shouldn't be added. Also, not every storyline needs to be added (think how long The Undertaker or Shawn Michaels would be if they were!!), only the major ones that are important in the person's overall career. Nikki♥31122:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make an article in your sandbox: User:Kalajan/sandbox. When the article is properly sourced and contains third party sources, message me again, and we can decide whether or not to move into article space. I'd imagine that you could probably include the history of Rhodes and DiBiase in the article as well, and we can redirect all the "Priceless" links to it. Nikki♥31121:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is quite ready yet. First, it needs to be copyedited for grammar, capitalization, etc. Secondly, there are no reliable third party sources. I think it is a good start, though, so keep working on it. Nikki♥31122:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
)Go to "My preferences" at the top of the page. 2)Go to where it says Raw signature (with the blank space) 3)Type (copy) this into it
Kalajan 4)Save it. 5)Then it should work. SteelersFan-9404:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask User:iMatthew. He's a friend of mine, and helped med when I started. If he's not busy I'm sure he could help you out. If not him then you could ask User:RyanCross. If they both can't do it. Let me know and I'll try to think of someone else. SteelersFan-9422:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I agree with iMatthew, and RyanCross, It might be better to get used to wikipedia, instead of userpage's, I didn't have a good one until I got used to Wikipedia, and I had some edit's. SteelersFan-9418:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noting you are very worried about your userpage. Please take a step back and start working on articles. It's very bad to begin a habbit of editing your userspace. ayematthew✡21:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here's no reason to get into it, he's a banned user who is not welcomed here on Wikipedia. Keep in mind, he's not blocked, he's banned, being banned is a-lot worse than being blocked. Please look at that article about being banned I linked for you. Also, I sent you a helpful email. SteelersFan-9421:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What did you mean to do with This edit? Also, I like that your editing wrestling article's more than your userspace, could you do it a little more less? (Editing your userspace that is).SteelersFan-9417:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about getting photos, outside of the ones I've taken myself, and I havn't been to a Raw show since August. Now there are Raw events coming to the area next month, and I'll see what I can do then. Mshake3 (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't push it. The WWE comes to the area next week. And there's no guarantees. For example, this past Monday, I would have only been able to get Snuka and Rhodes together. And who says they'll be together in such a way that I can get a good photo? Mshake3 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She said, from your own post, "we can decide whether or not to move into article space". That means more discussion is required since I've checked both your talk pages, and there's been no response from this edit but you made the articles anyway. That's not a consensus. By the way, why did you make two articles? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you put a lot of hard work into, but hard work doesn't automatically make it notable enough to have it's own article. The consensus was not to have it, I am simply following that consensus. Nikki never said the article could be created, she said you guys would discuss it after you'd created it in your sandbox, but you never gave her the chance to respond to you. You said you'd finished it in your sandbox, and created the article. Besides, and admin cannot overrule consensus. You'd need a consensus that the article is notbale enough to be included, that just Nikki's agreeing with you. By the way, I'm still waiting to hear why you created two identical articles? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I understand you're a bit frustrated. Yes, waiting for Nikki to respond would be a good idea. I think you need to understand that the best written article in the world will be deleted if it fails WP:N or any other policy, or there is simply a consensus not to have, as in this case. Creating two identical articles is a very bad idea, because it could look to people that you are trying to ensure that your article will be on wikipedia, even if one of them get redirected/deleted, and people will be less willing to talk to you reasonably about it. Just something to bear in mind. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no. If there was a consensus to have the page then I would, but since there isn't, and I highly doubt there will be for a few months at least, then I would rather devote my time to articles already in mainspace. My apologies. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Nici doesn't mind me throwing in my two cents here; Kalajan, the Legacy article probably won't be going live for some time yet. They've really done nothing shy of some miscellaneous beat-downs. I think the best thing to do is to let it cook in your sandbox for a while, add notable information when it happens, and ask a little down the road. (Don't ask when that may be... the Legacy looks like it's stuck in the "neutral" position right now.) Happy Holidays! Hazardous Matt14:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. First, take a look at a poorer example of an article. See the Nation of Domination article, and then the version I've been building in my Sandbox. Notice that while the NoD was around for a while there's a lot of miscellaneous fact that I removed. It's not notable that they lost a throw-away match that wasn't advertised, etc. Make sure that you're writing out-of-universe and follow the WP:PW manual of style. Off the top I see some spelling and grammar errors. Sometimes it helps to write the paragraph in something with a spellcheck, then paste it into your sandbox, then wikify everything. Hazardous Matt15:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the photo for you. Although you need to find a better one that fits within the fair use guidelines for Wikipedia. You don't even have Ted Dibiase listed as a member of the group but you have him and Cody Rhodes in the infobox photo. It's a horribly inaccurate photo considering the roster. When you get into a situation like this, it's best to wait for a better photo than it is to use one as a place holder. Hazardous Matt15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked "Edit this page" at the top and was able to access the infobox material. And again, I know he's a former member, but you don't have him listed in the list of members just under the photo, so it seems a bit odd to have. Hazardous Matt16:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, whenever you're working with a template and something isn't looking right, consult the template documentation. When you click on "edit this page" you see how the Infobox starts with "{{Infobox Wrestling team"? If you go to the search bar and type in Template:Infobox Wrestling team and hit enter you will see instructions for using that template. In this case, you didn't need to write "former members" you needed to write "former_members". If something begins with {{ it's a template. Hazardous Matt16:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Steelerfan has asked me to answer any comments left on his talkpage as you know he's taking a long wikibreak Btw incase you don't know I'm Adster95 and if you have any queries or questions don't hesitate to ask me. I know Steelerfan and you were pretty close and Steelerfans a great guy! But he might not be back for ages! So please continue to work on articles, reverted vandlism and all these wonderful things. You seem a really good and enthusastic editor and so continue to do that. And I'm not going to adopt you since you don't want anyonelse to which I think is fair enough. But if theres anything I can do just ask. Thanks Adster95 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Dave Kapoor.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
About the edit you made to Randy Orton. It's week by week info and is not needed. If we added week by week info, The Undertaker and HBK's articles would be huge. SimonKSK17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't win the Fatal Four way, so it's NN. The batista thing...... I don't know. Wait until he comes back, maybe something notable will come out of it. SimonKSK17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Randy Orton. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. D.M.N. (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you've noticed, this didn't fall under 3RR. But repeatedly adding similar material can fall under "edit warring". You seem to have stopped, so are in no danger unless you resume William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not tell people you are a professional signature maker. Wikipedia is not a MySpace, and being an "expert signature professional" violates that. Thanks, iMatthew // talk // 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The WWE website says it is ECW gold. You have to remember that the creative team does not run WWE.com (I am pretty sure that Brian Gewirtz didn't make the change himself). Miz & Morrison are on Raw more these days than they are on ECW, so I don't see why it hurts to say that the title can be defended on both brands. -- Scorpion042219:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't feel like using them anymore don't use them. If you're going to worry about someone "stealing" your signatures, or your userpage, you need to rethink your reasons for using Wikipedia. Hazardous Matt15:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched from them on Google. Nothing came up. This leads me to believe that you made them all up. Please see WP:NOTMYSPACE. Adding Make -belive articles will get you blocked. See User:Altenhofen. He also added false info to his UP. It created a lot of drama. I'm nominating this for deletion. ₰imonKSK21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing potential edits, please try not to act as if you are interrogating them or stoop to belittlement as you have on the discussion page of the article World Wrestling Entertainment employees. There are civil ways to have a disagreement without including your apparent superiority complex. Nobody owns the page and you'd benefit to keep that in mind. Hot Stuff International (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was incredibly unnecessary to refer to Simon KSK as a "retard" as you did here. And while I see that it was a comment added by an anonymous IP, you did go back to sign it, taking credit for it. Hazardous Matt17:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question was two words, with a subject and a predicate. It said "You retard!". There's nothing that can convince me I misconstrued that. Hazardous Matt17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I am reverting it one last time. Until, you can find a reliable source, and show it to me on the talk page, Cage has NOT signed woth the WWE. ₰imonKSK20:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have not done anything to me. I am not stalking you. You just happen to show up on my watchlist, making incorrect edits. You have no reliable source for your claims. People are not reliable sources. A lot of them are just bored, so they make up rumors. I believe that Cage will come back, but Wikipedia is a no-nonsense website, not a "add whatever you want because it looks like Cage is coming back. Neither party has said that Cage is coming back. ₰imonKSK20:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, did I rvert your edits 3 times? No. You started it by adding an unsourced statement. And, if you are going to smash a wall, go ahead. It's not gonna help you in anyway. ₰imonKSK20:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it a reliable source but the rest of WP:PW doesn't. I am acting normally. You are acting uncivil. You may feel that I am trying to get you, but I am not. ₰imonKSK20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.
That's what the nutshell says. Now, tell me. Is calling me abnormal and ignoring what I say respectful and considerate? Hey, you're the one with the link to WP:CIVIL on the top of your talk page. ₰imonKSK20:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I ignoring you? Because that would be pretty hard. I did not call you abnormal. I said "what I find abnormal is you not knowing what an RS is."
I dod not say "you are abnormal because, you don't know what an RS is". Read more carefully, please. ₰imonKSK20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I highly doubt it was sarcasm. ₰imonKSK20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You can't link to an article as a refrence. Even the section in which you linked to, has no sources. ₰imonKSK 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not say you wrote it. As a matter of fact that info should be deleted. There is no source. The point is, you still have no reliable source for Caras Jr. ₰imonKSK 19:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I stopped reverting them and agreed with the other user; see here
Decline reason:
Examination of the article history shows that you made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period and that you were not constructively discussing the issue on the talk page but making jokes about not edit warring being boring. This is both childish and disruptive in an article that was recently protected because of edit warring. You should be grateful I wasn't the blocking admin as I think you got off lightly with 24 hours. When your block expires think carefully about your behaviour because more of this will lead to rapidly escalating blocks — SpartazHumbug!22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note that I have restored the unblock decline after the user removed it. Please do not remove declines as this gives any reviewing admin a false understanding of the situation. Just so we are clear, if you do it again I will lock you away from editing your userpage. You are free to request a further unblock but must leave this template alone until you are either unblocked or the block has expired SpartazHumbug!22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I stopped reverting the edits about 12 hours ago and as I'm acting normally I get blocked, can I please be unblocked?
Decline reason:
I don't see any evidence that you actually realize what you did wrong. Going to Jimbo's page and asking for a change in the rules does not help your case at all. WP:3RR is a very old rule on Wikipedia and has wide acceptance, so you aren't going to get it changed. Also, since other people are edit warring at List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees, I've protected that page for a week. --Elkman(Elkspeak)02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I asked Jimbo that before getting blocked, and I should just be blocked from edit warring on wwe roster, not from everything but my talk page!
Decline reason:
Asking to get the rule changed does not get the rule changed. You still broke it. Plus your little "Forget the rules" line below worries me... — Smashvilletalk17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
That is what extends the block and gets your talk page protected. You have been warnedtwice. The best advice I can give you is to stay cool, sit it out, and learn from your mistakes. ₰imonKSK 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of how long five hours is. Look, you got blocked for edit-warring. That's it. You tried to appeal the block and it got declined. Then you tried to remove the decline notice and requested another unblock, which is not good form. Then your additional unblock request got declined, and now you're asking Nikki311 to unblock you when you have five hours left? Wikipedia should not be this much of a focal point in your life. You shouldn't be this frustrated that you can't edit for another five hours. It's concerning for various reasons. Hazardous Matt14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm not going to unblock you for several reasons 1)the block was justified as you broke a rule, 2)I agree with the block, and 3)even if I didn't agree with the block, I would get in trouble for unblocking you when the request has been denied so many times. Just wait it out. You aren't blocked forever, and if you discuss controversial changes before edit warring, you won't ever be blocked for that reason again. Nikki♥31116:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is annoying. Don't you listen to people? Wait it out. Simple. Watch TV. Play a flash game. Watch Family Guy on your PSP. Do something that consumes time rapidly. ₰imonKSK 20:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Since your ban was lifted you've already made five very trivial Myspace-like edits to your userpage and tried to circumvent consensus as documented here. You say you find spelling and grammar mistakes on your userpage, but I see very little mainspace edits. Also, you say Wikipedia is not fun without edit warring, and seem to be treating an encyclopedia more like a social hangout. Hazardous Matt22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing a 24-hour block for edit-warring to be the same as being imprisoned?
It has been suggested to you numerous times by numerous editors that you stop focusing on your userpage and make contributing edits to articles. When you do make edits to articles you're adding unsourced information or going against consensus without discussing any of the changes you want to make. Hazardous Matt22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"prison changes a man"? You were not imprisoned. You had a block for edit-warring. You need to start listening to the advice other editors give you. If you're going to just do what you feel like (eg. edit-warring) then you will be blocked for a longer amount of time. Hazardous Matt22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Matt. You ignore whatever I say, or whatever anyone says. Have you read WP:Civil? It says to not ignore what other editors say. Another thing. Prison changes a man. I don't think the block changed you at all. ₰imonKSK22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is shouting at you. If we were "shouting" it would be in all capitals. And you say you listen, but you still haven't addressed the points I made at the beginning of this thread. All you did was say I needed to read some story about being imprisoned. Hazardous Matt14:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And my post addressed that. As soon as you were unblocked you immediately began making edits to your userpage first. This isn't MySpace, but you put far too much attention into your userpage. Hazardous Matt14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't grammatical edits. The first thing you did when you came away from your block was add your "Original Sayings" or catchphrases to your userpage, and I'm sorry, but I'm too busy at work today to continue this debate anymore. Hazardous Matt14:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, I saw that you had some probs with sinofdreams. I didn't do anything, cause I wanted to see how you reacted to this. You did very well, but you are also new and a bit unexperienced. I'm still unexperienced. I just want to tell you to stay a way from telling newbies that. I see your point, but it's not the best to get it across. Thanks. ₰imonKSK20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And? You started to really edit at the end of September. That's pretty fresh. I edited in Feb, but I really started editing like a wikiholic in April. ₰imonKSK21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "I'm trying very hard to be like User:Hazardous Matt or SimonKSK," - please don't otherwise you just might be accused of being a sockpuppet - act like yourself, don't try and be like them - edit the articles you want, not what someone else wants. D.M.N. (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:Kaizer13. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Smashvilletalk20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that you and Steelerfan were going to try and find you another adopter/mentor/whatever before he left. That would be a truly excellent idea; you need someone who's opinion you respect to guide you through this. Your entire editing history today has been disruptive. If it's intentional, because you're still pissed off about your 3RR block, then a block of a week or so would be appropriate. I'll assume it's unintentional, but you are still one more disruptive edit away from a week long block to give you time to read some policy pages. Not everything is a crisis, not everyone is your enemy.
Please go do something else for a while, and come back when you aren't as stressed out. It's either a voluntary short break now, or an involuntary longer break the next time you lose you cool.
Re:your question on my talk page. No, not an insult, a fairly clear and direct (IMHO) statement of fact. You are disrupting multiple pages. And no, not asking if you want to be blocked. I'm telling you that you will be blocked if you cause any further disruption. --barneca (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I didn't just indef block you for this, except I was tired of dealing with you, and because your genius mentor basically told you to. But I realize now I never even warned you for it, so even though it's in the past, and I'm willing to let it die, just to make perfectly clear for the future: if you do anything remotely like that again, I will just block you indefinitely. It's important you know how thin the ice you're standing on is. --barneca (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have an offer. I will adopt you. There is no choice. You just don't seem to understand the policies. I will help you learn to be cool, and how to end a content dispute. I hope that you will say yes to my offer. ₰imonKSK21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider this strongly, Kalajan. I personally think SimonKSK could be a good mentor for you, as long as you're willing to listen to him. Hazardous Matt21:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kalajan, I would also like to point out (and listen, because it is very important from this point forward) that you need to read up on several WP policies and need to start asking questions when you're not sure of something, instead of jumping headfirst into a backfiring case at WP:AN like you did...3 times....today.
Seriously, you need to read what people tell you. I did not say "If someone insults you to ignore it and let it pass." I said "I'd advise avoid warning people directly and get input from someone else on the issue.". If a warning is necessary, than Simon, myself, or a few others should be able to help clarify that for you. Right now you need to keep a low-profile. Hazardous Matt21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he hasn't been blocked. You can check that by going into someone's contributions and clicking the link to the "Block log" at the top of the page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, let it go. You don't need to tell the WP:PW everything bad someone says about the project. It doesn't make you look good. And I suggest removing his userpage from that list of "Private Stuff" on your userpage. Stop hunting for trouble. Hazardous Matt15:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MarksandBarks is a sock. I'm not sure about Colts, but I am strongly suspicous. He contacted Sins out of nowhere. IF, he is a sock, then a will post a SSP. But, if he is not, then I will just warn Sins, as he is not using it as a block evasion. ₰imonKSK22:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kalajan, you are one unacceptable edit away from being blocked again. You have to stop yourself. You cannot try to trick someone into revealing their ip to you. This is a completely unacceptable way to behave and you have only made one article space edit in your last 100. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't block you now? You keep wasting other editors time with your nonsense and some of your behaviour is completely beyond the pale. If you can't work out where the line is, do absolutely nothing without discussing it with your mentor first. Draw up a plan of edits you can do and stick to them. I'm tired of the drama and you have to reform now or leave. Is that clear? SpartazHumbug!19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey kalajan just a small tip your legacy page is looking good think you should include a link from your userpage to ur legacy page to let other users who see ur page see the legacy page if that makes sense lol like the way i have for my galleryAdster9510:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey if Adster, Simon, Nikki or Hazardous Matt read this message; I'm taking a wikibreak of 1 week. If someone sends me a message could you tell them my decision? See you a few hours before Royal Rumble (2009)! Kalajan€₣13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not editing the userpage is a good idea (I'm not sure if you can on a block, I thought it was just the talk page) but do not treat this as a break that you've self-imposed on yourself. You're only taking the break because it's been mandated that you lose your editing privileges for a week. Hazardous Matt17:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 616 articles in Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles. It still would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
A search bar has been added to the archive box on the PW project talk page for easier navigation through the archives.
This section is intended to warn users about potential targets of vandalism and speculation: professional wrestling events from major promotions for the month of January.
Our project has a cleanup listing. Please help by adding sources or expanding any articles listed here.
When the title of an refers to several things, it is necessary to provide links or disambiguate the page so that readers typing in that title can quickly navigate to the article that interests them. For example: World Heavyweight Championship (WWE).
When editing an article, use the edit summary to provide a brief summary of your edits; this helps users understand what was changed in the article.
I am dreadfully sorry that you have been blocked. I even encouraged you to write that. You may have not listen to my instructions, but I am happy that you are trying to turn over a new leaf. I know that when you return, you will do better than ever. Simon \\ KSKYes we can!19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know him? Cause, he contacted me out of nowhere. IMatthew already has started a discussion at the noticeboard. Believe me, he has good reasons to be suspicous. It would also mean that you are not trying to turn over a new leaf. Do you want an indef block or something? Simon \\ KSKYes we can!23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not me, if I made one it would be about something like Hunter or so on, I've got nothing to do with it; anyway my IP is blocked too. Kalajan€₣14:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No yesterday I tried to see if my IP worked but it isn't; believe me; I would've created a new account and dumped this one for good. Kalajan€·₣14:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're talking about Block Evasion. When blocked, you cannot just say "Oh I'll start with a new account so I can start editing again before the ban is finished". If you truly want a fresh start, then you would want to request a username change after your block has expired. Hazardous Matt14:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can have a username change genreally but that does not mean a fresh start. all of your old edits and history is ported over. Also, if you make an effort to hide your past, most people are not very happy. We all make mistakes, just archive them and move on. a year from now, nobody will care what you did as long as you dont make the same mistakes over and over again. Chrislk02Chris Kreider14:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kalajan, there have been a lot of other editors who have started out on the wrong foot and have come back from their blocks ready to contribute and read up on WP Policy. A name change isn't necessary. All you really need to do is sit out the block. Don't try to evade it. Just wait the week. Hazardous Matt14:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably keep Kalajan and just edit mainspace; not really get my nose into the middle of everything; that's probably what made The City fall ;·)) Matt, I'm lucky you didn't want to hunt me down [3] although I'm blocked I can still read things! Kalajan€·₣14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help people who want help. And I'm aware you can still read articles. Have you read those policies that I posted on your talkpage last week? Hazardous Matt15:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one; and yes Deskana, it's been like this (Matt ripping his hair out and me not listening) for some time =·] But I am now listening (reading) everything; treat me as another person now. Kalajan€·₣15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I try not to treat anyone "like someone", partially because I don't like to hold grudges, and partially because my memory is too bad to! --Deskana(talk)15:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Sorry for not trusting you. But, we have a lot of reasons to think that you are KingOreo. And, Matt, there is a difference between "talking about something" and "doing it." Simon \\ KSKYes we can!17:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you had no reason to trust me; my IP was "block exemptioned" a few months ago and I'm blocked; but as you see; I'm not him, lucky the conversation on WP:AN came out right. Kalajan€·₣19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Simon, can you nominate me for the stewards; I know 100% English, 100% Spanish and about 1/3 French; make it French 1/5? Kalajan€·₣14:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon; I'd like to point out something; in WWE Roster, it says that HBK and JBL are a team. They're not, it's just another Wrestler/valet combination. Could you change it? Kalajan€·₣13:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping an eye on this talk page is giving me a headache, so I'm about to take it off my watchlist. Some final thoughts:
FWIW, Kalajan, Stewards are the most trusted members of the community; you don't fit that description. You need to work on not getting banned here first.
All this talk about this person's socks and that person's socks, and trying to sneakily get someone's IP address, and all the associated bullshit is getting old fast. Just stop all the ridiculous MMORPG and MYSPACE stuff. KingOreo is not your problem.
Kalajan, may I repectfully suggest just not posting here until your block is up? If you find you cannot resist posting here while blocked, I suggest that's evidence of having the wrong mindset (it's kind of a Zen thing).
Everyone else, may I respectfully suggest unwatchlisting this page until the block is up? There's a lot of crap going on here that is doing no one any good. If I didn't think it would ultimately cause me more headaches dealing with screams of "admin abuse", I would just protect this talk page until the block expires.
I'll be keeping an eye out after the block expires and see how you are doing with your resolution to straighten up. Feel free to ask if you have questions when you start editing again. Hopefully, goodbye until then. If something truly eggregious is posted here, by anyone, which requires admin intervention, someone leave a note on my, or any other admin's, talk page, and blocks can start getting handed out like candy. This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room for teenage wrestling fans, and the behavior of several people on this talk page, and related talk pages, really needs to stop. --barneca (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you do not heed barnecas warning, I will have no problem blocking you for much longer, and protecting your talk page to precent abuse. The thing about the IP address REALLY concerns me. I suspect something fishy and unless you clean up you are going to end up indeffed. Chrislk02Chris Kreider15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay here, you have no right to stop me editing my talk page; if you don't mind socks; Barneca, don't have a fit with me about my IP, I was only trying to see if my IP worked because it was exemptioned. I'm going to watch the inauguration. If you don't like wrestling fans don't pay them any attention, and let them be, for I bet wrestling fans don't like what you people write about. You'll find Wrestlers are the warmest people ever. Kalajan€·₣16:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand; I have no problem with wrestling fans. I have a problem with very young wrestling fans using Wikipedia as a chat room and MMORPG instead of contributing to wrestling articles. --barneca (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not a young-wrestling-fan, I'm part of the modern youth. And I don't like MMORPGs anyway, I already tried sherwood a few years ago and... HMM... Noap! Kalajan€·₣16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do not own any part of this project. While it is your talk page in name, it is the communities. We regularly fully protect talk pages to prevent users from abusing them. I am not saying you are abusing yours but we do have the right to. Chrislk02Chris Kreider17:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, see you've been here for more than me so I guess you know more... 'guess I'll have to obey. Did you see Obama? Kalajan€·₣17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I saw that convo with smashville and I'm just telling you all that I'm not him, and Sinofdreams? I thought his IP was blocked; can he make a new account? I don't think I could, and I got that exemption... Kalajan€·₣19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
First off, you dont get a warning for that type of behavior. You now have one and next time it happens it is very likley you will get indef blocked. My block of only a week was challenged at ANI by a list of people saying you should be indef blocked. I assumed good faith and gave you hope of a second chance. Now i will give you a second chance, please dont let me down. Read wikipedias policies and guidelines to learn more about how to interact appropriatley. (for example not trying to trick somebody into giving you there IP address) There is also suspicion that you are using multiple accounts. If it is found that you are, in a heartbeat you will be indef blocked. You are on VERY thin ice so be careful. Chrislk02Chris Kreider20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being that I unblocked you, I am going to take the responsibility to monitor your behavior. If you do anything that would not be considered acceptable in a normal, civilized conversation, anything that attempts to trick existing users (including emails that may be brought to my attention) you will be indef blocked. This is not a joke, this is a serious project. I am giving you a chance here, please dont let me down. Chrislk02Chris Kreider20:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He got blocked for socking Colts, MarkandBark, KingOreo, and now Fiddler96. Fiidler96 had a similar layout on his user page that was like yours. I'm just warning you, that if he starts attacking you. Stay cool. We don't want a indef. I starting to trust you. Don't fail me now. ;) SimonKSK20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kalajan, I am concerned with your choice of adopter. While I am not doubting SimonKSK's abilities as an editor, I feel he may be a poor choice of a person for you to "follow" around this project. It appears that he is causing you trouble. I encourage you to carefully take the advice he gives and, if you have any questions on how to handle something to stop by my talk page and ask away. Note that I am not on wikipedia as a myspace or social networking site so I wont chit chat but I, due to my length of time on this project, can most liley offer you advice and assistance that will be in compliance with wikipedias policies (and most likley wont end up getting you blocked). I am not the only editor with this concern. If you have any questions, feel free to drop by mypage. Chrislk02Chris Kreider20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you can't believe how thankfull I am. Now, lets see. I've got some changing to make, turning a leaf. For now I think Simon is all right. Steelers wasn't perfect; no one is, but they're both great people, and I'd prefer to have a WP:PW adopter, as he/she will understand the reason for my edits. Thanks again; and Kris, if I have any problems; all ask you. Thanks, lets get helping teh wiki. Kalajan€·₣21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been unblocked; I hope you make the best of it. Regarding your question on my talk page; I recommend you not become involved with Fiddler96's identity, and I'm very puzzled by your suggestion that he be "given a chance". Do you know something I don't about who he is? No, don't answer that. Instead, I suggest you steer well clear of the multiple socks that seem to be infesting this corner of WP:PW. If I had the intestinal fortitude, I would look into the socking in more detail, but instead I'm just keeping an eye out for the obvious ones and hoping they'll get bored. But at this stage, all I know is that there is a 90% chance this is a sock of Sinofdreams, a 10% chance it's a sock of someone else trolling this group of editors, and a 0% chance this is someone who plans to edit constructively. Coming to the defense of an obvious troublemaker is not a good use of your time. --barneca (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with barneca that there is a sock party going on somewhere around here. I just hope you are not involved in it. If you have inside information, let us know, otherwise steer clear or you could end up guilty by association. We often use the duck test for sock puppet identification. This means we dont waste checkuser resources for people who are obviousley socks and are unlikley to contribute positivley in any manner. I recommend you steer clear of these areas and work on writing articles. Hope this helps. Chrislk02Chris Kreider17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well; stop meddling in other people's business, Kalajan. Your pandering comment and then your idle threat is of concern, especially since you seem to be wanting to divulge information on this case -- otherwise, you wouldn't be hounding for resolve. seicer | talk | contribs18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, what did I tell you? Leave it be. Either write articles/contribute or stop wasting time. The more you push the more suspocious you seem. Are these people you are trying to get unblocked sock or meat puppets of yourself? Chrislk02Chris Kreider20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THings look bad for him unless you have some inside information (such as a known meat puppet or sock puppet of yourself). In relation to colts 1 and colts 2 it looks pretty suspicious. First off, colts1 contribs only go through January 17. colts2 contribs go Jan19-21 and [fiddlers contribs go from jan21-jan22. Notice almost no overlapped editing time and common set of editors involved in. THis is a pretty good example of being able to figure things out by reading between the lines. I hope you are not involved in this sock pyramid. If you are, we will find out. Chrislk02Chris Kreider20:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, i just looked through edit histories and it appears he is unrelated (it did look likle fiddler96 was trying to cause problems by stealing his userpage and trying to act like him). However, the edit dates and times did not realy imply they were socks. Thanks deskana.Chrislk02Chris Kreider20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Chris answered your question before me, I will just copy what he said on my talk. "::It means that, for example a seeminlgy new editor, can be identified as a sock by the things he does. For example, if a new editor, lets call him (Editor A) starts editing all of the articles that banned (Editor B) used to edit we may be bale to infer that editor A is really Editor B. This does not always apply to editing patterns. For example, there was a sock puppet I used to fight that every time he created a new account he added the same, unique userbox. I for weeks monitored the usage of that userbox and when new ones popped up, watched that editor for the editing patterns the sock exhibited. In short is just says, read between the lines. Chrislk02Chris Kreider 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)" SimonKSK20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's doing okay, but it needs to go with our MoS and "teh wiki's" MoS, so it can be put in mainspace. There a lot of week by week non notable info, and your hidden comment encouraging week by week is not helping. First, you should only list important events, like a title win, or kickout. When you're talking about someone getting kicked out, you shouldn't make a huge IU paragraph. It should be 2 simple sentences about the kick outs. The finisher and sig moves section should not be in a table, as it does not comply with our Manual of Style (Our "Bible"). If you want me to help, I will. Just ask. ;) SimonKSK23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop changing the article from the out of universe style it is in currently. You may edit the article, but you must keep the names in the format they are in. ArcAngel (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Chavo guerrero and edge hug.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. iMatthew // talk // 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Triple H 2.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. iMatthew // talk // 22:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:File:Cyberfrog edition number one.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. iMatthew // talk // 22:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah they usually come to Dublin and Belfast. WWE's back in Belfast in April so I should try to get some picts and not sure when TNA comes back to Dublin but hoping to go. Adster9510:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You actually have many editors watching you right now because of the thread you're hanging by. Nobody is trying to stalk you, rather help you stay un-blocked. Until you can prove that you don't need to be watched, you will have editors watching you to make sure you don't continue your edit warring, incivility, and overall disruption. iMatthew // talk // 16:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because like I already told you, fair use pictures are not allowed on Wikipedia without a fair use rationale, and you didn't add one. Those pictures of Triple H and Chavo/Edge were not taken by you, as I found them on other websites. You can't add fair use pictures of living people to Wikipedia, and there are already pictures of them on here. iMatthew // talk // 16:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, since you requested that iMatthew stop watching all of your edits, Kalajan, would you please stop watching my edits and allow me to work on my sandbox articles without interruption? I don't have links to them from my main page for reason. I'm still locating sources for a lot of information and trying to make the article as notable as possible, and it's difficult to do so when I find someone has made numerous edits overnight. Hazardous Matt16:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's very hypocritical of you, Kalajan. Anyway, it's not your picture. Just taking a picture of the box does not make it yours. iMatthew // talk // 16:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, watch how you act. You are a hypocrite. You cried and complained and ran to Matt when Sinofdreams stole yours and his signatures. Now, you took Matt's talk page sign and changed the text. Now it's at the top of your userpage. Please stop accusing others of actions that you have done yourself. iMatthew // talk // 16:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See here. It was not bad-faith at all. He just did not source it. SimonKSK19:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on man, you are about to get blocked again. chill out. if you have questions, ask before you do stuff. Before you warn somebody or make accusations, ask somebody for advice. I regularly, even as an experienced editor, ask for 2nd and 3rd opinions on difficult situations. I warned you and I will not hesitate to block you again. Chrislk02Chris Kreider04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna warn him. He kinda clear that he doesn't give a damn about WP:CIVIL. Besides, why are you stalking his edits? His comments were not even directed at you. SimonKSK20:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how close you are to being blocked indefinitely, I think it's a little naive of you to be intentionally disruptive when not one, not two, but three people have told you to stop. --Smashvilletalk21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little bizarre that you kept trying to add the template that Sinofdreams put on all of his sock pages, which leads me to this question...Are you Sinofdreams?--Smashvilletalk05:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least based on edit history they appoear un-related. I cannot guarantee he is not a sock but based on evidence so far it appears not. All I can say is as long as he is not disruptive in ANY way, let him be. He has had MANY MANY warnings. next sign of disruption will be a very long block that I doubt will be overturned. Kalajan, I recommend you CAREFULLY heed what I have told you so far. If you even have a QUESTION, no matter how stupid you think it is, contact me before you do it. you are on THIN ice. Chrislk02Chris Kreider19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I SWEAR I've got nothing to do with that Sin, haven't you seen how I've been trying to help him? Please do not think otherwhys. ←Kalajan→20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have thought it, but I didn't edit the employees page with unsourced claims. the EFD thing is a joke. It's a humorous version of WP:AFD. Please don't participate. It's best if you work on mainspace. SimonKSK21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that this edit makes you look even more shady? I know that you are not Sinofdreams but that is ridiculous. You hanging on a thin thread. If can't seem to let go of the sinofdreams case, than that just raises eyebrows. SimonKSK23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your are one obnoxious, immature comment away from me reporting you to an administrator. I'm fed up with your un-willingness to listen to help. iMatthew // talk // 14:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what is this? This is your final warning. next thing even construed as incivility, as suspicious behavior, or anything that is not writing an article I WILL block you for. It is taking a lot of time and effor to follow you and your actions are bordering on trolling. People have been blocked for a LOT LESS. Chrislk02Chris Kreider14:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But why does he want me to change my sig? I don't see the point. Oh and by the way, IMatt has, up to now called my a hipocrite, obnoxious and inmature, that is uncivilness. I also see your point in watching me, although I hate it, but I don't see IMatt's, I almost never have contact with him and he isn't an admin. There are too many people watching me. I feel horrible, like a criminal. ←Kalajan→14:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, there are many editors who think sigs should be plain. However there is no 100% set rules however if sigs are too obnoxious there have been precedent to force them to change it. Second of all, the more disruptive, the more problems you cause the more people you attract who are going to watch you. If you do good, people go away. If you do bad, people notice. It is actually a great feature of this project because in the end those who are causing trouble have the mos teyes on them and those who work quietly behind the scenes usually do so with little interference. Just some thoughts. Chrislk02Chris Kreider15:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I don't see what is wrong with my sig, I actually think it's really nice, as I told IMatt, I think it's "shiny" and I've already been told it's nice, by one editor, I bet others think the same, I thought watching user talk page wasn't allowed. Anyway, there no way I'm going to become an admin now. ←Kalajan→15:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point of wikipedia is generally to write/improve articles. While i think some of the social aspects of wikipedia are important, there are many influential editors who think otherwise. Fancy signatures and other things like that have several downsides. A.) when editing a page, some signatures can take 3-4 lines which make it difficult to keep track of where a comment ends and the next one begins. If it gets so long, that is when it is considered disruptive and editors are often asked to change. B.)the point of wikipedia is not myspace or any other social networking site. Overly complex signatures make it seem more like that and some editors spend more time on that than they ever do writing articles (likley to get you blocked). C.)Signatures are a wa to identify an editor. Some signtaures become so complex as it becomes hard to identify the editor by the name. This is especially true for editors who change there sig's frequently. For example, I have been here almost 3 years and only changed my sig 2 or 3 times as opposed to some editors who may do that in a month. D.)overly complex signatures are plain distracting. While you wont be forced to change it, it is likley you wont be taken seriosley and people will complain. These are just a few of the problems that people find with complex signatures.Chrislk02Chris Kreider17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know where a comment starts and all that cause of ":" at the border ot the page or the big "enter button" gap that other people use. I think my sig is at least three lines long which is, I think, less than you. Now, I'd like to be explained something, how do I archive this page? ←Kalajan→17:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You archive this page by creating a new archive subpage. For example User talk:Kalajan/Archive01. After you create that page, you edit your current page and cut (highlight everything you want to remove and press Ctrl+X (on a windows PC)) then save your current talk page. Then you go to your new archive page and paste (Ctrl+V). Then save that. then, link to it from, somewhere ony our talk page (kind of like I do). Chrislk02Chris Kreider17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
